You misunderstood me. I wasn't claiming viruses are or aren't alive. I was pointing out you chose a citation that doesn't contain support for your claim. There are plenty of sources that would back you up, but that link doesn't.
> That article (and the more general article on viruses) both pointedly avoid referring to viruses as organisms
As if you expect people to carefully read the whole article, notice it doesn't mention anywhere whether viruses are alive, and conclude that by not mentioning this it supports your claim. By the same logic, it pointedly avoids saying viruses aren't alive.
> Scientific opinions differ on whether viruses are a form of life or organic structures that interact with living organisms. They have been described as "organisms at the edge of life", since they resemble organisms in that they possess genes, evolve by natural selection, and reproduce by creating multiple copies of themselves through self-assembly. Although they have genes, they do not have a cellular structure, which is often seen as the basic unit of life. Viruses do not have their own metabolism and require a host cell to make new products. They therefore cannot naturally reproduce outside a host cell—although some bacteria such as rickettsia and chlamydia are considered living organisms despite the same limitation. Accepted forms of life use cell division to reproduce, whereas viruses spontaneously assemble within cells. They differ from autonomous growth of crystals as they inherit genetic mutations while being subject to natural selection. Virus self-assembly within host cells has implications for the study of the origin of life, as it lends further credence to the hypothesis that life could have started as self-assembling organic molecules. The virocell model first proposed by Patrick Forterre considers the infected cell to be the "living form" of viruses and that virus particles (virions) are analogous to spores. Although the living versus non-living debate continues, the virocell model has gained some acceptance.
> That article (and the more general article on viruses) both pointedly avoid referring to viruses as organisms
As if you expect people to carefully read the whole article, notice it doesn't mention anywhere whether viruses are alive, and conclude that by not mentioning this it supports your claim. By the same logic, it pointedly avoids saying viruses aren't alive.
The main article on viruses has a section that addresses directly whether viruses are alive (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virus#Life_properties):
> Scientific opinions differ on whether viruses are a form of life or organic structures that interact with living organisms. They have been described as "organisms at the edge of life", since they resemble organisms in that they possess genes, evolve by natural selection, and reproduce by creating multiple copies of themselves through self-assembly. Although they have genes, they do not have a cellular structure, which is often seen as the basic unit of life. Viruses do not have their own metabolism and require a host cell to make new products. They therefore cannot naturally reproduce outside a host cell—although some bacteria such as rickettsia and chlamydia are considered living organisms despite the same limitation. Accepted forms of life use cell division to reproduce, whereas viruses spontaneously assemble within cells. They differ from autonomous growth of crystals as they inherit genetic mutations while being subject to natural selection. Virus self-assembly within host cells has implications for the study of the origin of life, as it lends further credence to the hypothesis that life could have started as self-assembling organic molecules. The virocell model first proposed by Patrick Forterre considers the infected cell to be the "living form" of viruses and that virus particles (virions) are analogous to spores. Although the living versus non-living debate continues, the virocell model has gained some acceptance.